Thor vs. Faora

Originally posted by Robtard
The blast on the first film was more akin to a massive shock-wave. It's not really comparable his lighting attacks. He's the god of thunder as well as lightning.

Are you going to ignore the scene and what's it's conveying to us with the lighting building up?

There were buildings close by with flat roofs, where he wouldn't have to be holding on like a monkey and would have been far easier to blast from.

I disagree, imo, the scene and specifically the camera panning down showing us was to illustrate that he was using the building and its properties as a lightning rod to enhance his attack.

I'm not ignoring the scene I'm just not trying to assign it properties it doesn't have.

Everything about that scene was designed to show us Thor was about to unleash a powerful attack. No where does it say he needed that tower to perform said feat.

The flat top building argument is absurd. If he really was using that building as a lightning rod he could have still done it atop of any flat building as well or do you believe they are somehow immune to lightning.

Do you honestly believe Thor could not have replicated that feat without an energy storage device? Show me where the movie states as much? Show me where Thor said he can only hold so much charge. Show me where Thor can randomly use anything he wants as an energy device.

For that matter show me why Thor needed that when his basic level attack against IM gave him a 400% increase. You really think destroying a Leviathan is beyond him without some outside assistance?

You have no real hard evidence, you just have a scene loosely interrupted to fit your desire. No where in the scene is it apparent he needed that tower for any of the feat. No where in that scene do I see where Thor actually needs the building to perform said feat.

Originally posted by Newjak
It was a single lightning bolt he summoned down through his hammer.

I'm not ignoring the scene I'm just not trying to assign it properties it doesn't have.

Everything about that scene was designed to show us Thor was about to unleash a powerful attack. No where does it say he needed that tower to perform said feat.

The flat top building argument is absurd. If he really was using that building as a lightning rod he could have still done it atop of any flat building as well or do you believe they are somehow immune to lightning.

Do you honestly believe Thor could not have replicated that feat without an energy storage device? Show me where the movie states as much? Show me where Thor said he can only hold so much charge. Show me where Thor can randomly use anything he wants as an energy device.

For that matter show me why Thor needed that when his basic level attack against IM gave him a 400% increase. You really think destroying a Leviathan is beyond him without some outside assistance?

You have no real hard evidence, you just have a scene loosely interrupted to fit your desire. No where in the scene is it apparent he needed that tower for any of the feat. No where in that scene do I see where Thor actually needs the building to perform said feat.

That then caused a massive shockwave that crumbled rock and ice for many, many, many meters. IIRC, lightning doesn't do that and I'm pretty sure he slammed the butt of his hammer into the ground as well.

If you want to say the building scene 'was just for looks and nothing was being conveyed to the audience', sure. I don't.

No, it's not absurd. Having a tall narrow metal building would work far greater as a lightning rod than a flat-roofed building composed mostly of concrete.

I have already shown you, it's the scene. You simply think it was just for show. I disagree. Show me Thor doing a lighting attack of that magnitude elsewhere? Two can play the silly dance game, but I really prefer we don't.

Do you think Thor was trying to obliterate Iron Man or just put him in his place with the lightning bolt? That massive blast wasn't against a single leviathan, he was trying to slow the flow of the incoming invasion army, why he needed it to be massive.

Not loosely at all. Watch it again closely, to me it's clearly evident. I don't need Thor speaking on screen saying "okay Rogers, I'm going to fly up to that one building that is most similar in properties to a lightning rod and use it to assist me in channeling a really massive amount of lightning so I can slow the flow of the invasion for a bit." The scene with a few choice camera shots , lightning surging all around it and the fact we don't see Thor doing those levels of lightning in the film at any other time are enough for me.

Originally posted by Robtard
That then caused a massive shockwave that crumbled rock and ice for many, many, many meters. IIRC, lightning doesn't do that and I'm pretty sure he slammed the butt of his hammer into the ground as well.

If you want to say the building scene 'was just for looks and nothing was being conveyed to the audience', sure. I don't.

No, it's not absurd. Having a tall narrow metal building would work far greater as a lightning rod than a flat-roofed building composed mostly of concrete.

I have already shown you, it's the scene. You simply think it was just for show. I disagree. Show me Thor doing a lighting attack of that magnitude elsewhere? Two can play the silly dance game, but I really prefer we don't.

Do you think Thor was trying to obliterate Iron Man or just put him in his place with the lightning bolt? That massive blast wasn't against a single leviathan, he was trying to slow the flow of the incoming invasion army, why he needed it to be massive.

Not loosely at all. Watch it again closely, to me it's clearly evident. I don't need Thor speaking on screen saying "okay Rogers, I'm going to fly up to that one building that is most similar in properties to a lightning rod and use it to assist me in channeling a really massive amount of lightning so I can slow the flow of the invasion for a bit." The scene with a few choice camera shots , lightning surging all around it and the fact we don't see Thor doing those levels of lightning in the film at any other time are enough for me.

One of Thor's holding back lightning bolts was enough to give IM a 400% increase. What we know of IM that is pretty powerful.

Thor also fried an entire group Chitari after he fought Loki.

It is absurd because other than you looking at it and going oh the lightning bolt is being stored in the tower Thor's using it as a battery because he can't shoot that powerful of lightning without doing so nothing Thor did before or since shows him having to do that anything like that.

Never did Thor have to hold a charge outside of his hammer.

Also that tower is also concrete and glass same as the flat rooftops around it. Those building also have lightning rods on them.

Draws lightning into his hammer and strikes it into the tundra. Difference from the tower scene is he's not concentrate his blast at one target, so of course his tower shot lasted longer as it's only focus at a sole target.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Newjak
He did it the butt of his hammer into the ground but he still summoned the lightning bolt on top of it so unless you're think he just did it for show he obviously used the bolt to contribute to the attack.

One of Thor's holding back lightning bolts was enough to give IM a 400% increase. What we know of IM that is pretty powerful.

Thor also fried an entire group Chitari after he fought Loki.

It is absurd because other than you looking at it and going oh the lightning bolt is being stored in the tower Thor's using it as a battery because he can't shoot that powerful of lightning without doing so nothing Thor did before or since shows him having to do that anything like that.

Never did Thor have to hold a charge outside of his hammer.

Also that tower is also concrete and glass same as the flat rooftops around it. Those building also have lightning rods on them.

Point is, the Juthenheim blast wasn't a lightning attack like in Avengers. It was more similar to a shock wave.

I've not argued that Thor isn't powerful.

That blast he used to take out the foot troops was nothing compared to the blast from the tower.

Well, I disagree, to me it's evident what was being conveyed to the audience.

That building is the Chrysler Building and its top is covered in steel sheet, that along with its shape make it a great massive lighting rod.

In any case, I believe the point we were trying to debate here is whether Thor's lightning can hurt Faora or not. Faora is also just a single target, so Thor wouldn't need to divide his lightning into multiple forks.

So, do you guys believe Thor's lightning powerful enough to hurt Faora?

Originally posted by Newjak
You're not stating facts all though, most of them are jsut opinions or aren't backed by anything.

One being that the Thor in Thor the movie was significantly weaker than he was in Avengers.

Another being that he amped himself for his Leviathan busting attack by using the building. Nothing on screen or any statements in in either his solo movie or the Avengers shows him needing to store energy to release a powerful blast. At that point it's just conjecture on your part with no actual proof other than you believe the tower had to be storing energy despite Thor never doing anything like that before or since.

Thor's lightning did damage part's of the Leviathan's armor.

You're missing the point. If the ground was so brittle and Thor's attack was so weak the ground should have collapsed under itself considering it had an entire race of begins living on it's surface. You think building a giant city on top of it would have caused the chain reaction long before Thor showed up of that's all it took.

I'm not going to discuss whether Thor amped the lightning (whether to provide stronger blasts or longer blasts) while on the building since it's not debatable. Any attempt to debate against it is pure trolling. There was no other reason why Thor used the building. He didn't use it to target multiple enemies since he could do that without the building.

The lightning struck in a small spot with concentration of kinetic energy and burning energy. It wasn't all concussive. Those Giants were no more than half a ton. Plus pressure = force / area. Normal concrete can hold any amount of weight if the area is large enough. But apply the weight of a 50 ton tank in the size of a lightning bolt and it would penetrate like water.

That is moot anyway since it was a different lightning attack. Thor's stamp lightning is using much more powerful than his directed lightning (from his hammer).

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor in avengers was weaker than in Thor the movie. You have it backwards.

I'm not going to discuss whether Thor amped the lightning (whether to provide stronger blasts or longer blasts) while on the building since it's not debatable. Any attempt to debate against it is pure trolling. There was no other reason why Thor used the building. He didn't use it to target multiple enemies since he could do that without the building.

The lightning struck in a small spot with concentration of kinetic energy and burning energy. It wasn't all concussive. Those Giants were no more than half a ton. Plus pressure = force / area. Normal concrete can hold any amount of weight if the area is large enough. But apply the weight of a 50 ton tank in the size of a lightning bolt and it would penetrate like water.

That is moot anyway since it was a different lightning attack. Thor's stamp lightning is using much more powerful than his directed lightning (from his hammer).

How exactly is Thor weaker in the Avengers?

You're right, debating that building is useless. We all know that steel does not amp lightning. Debating against that is not only trolling but stupid. The reason he used the building was for a vantage point.

Originally posted by FrothByte
In any case, I believe the point we were trying to debate here is whether Thor's lightning can hurt Faora or not. Faora is also just a single target, so Thor wouldn't need to divide his lightning into multiple forks.

So, do you guys believe Thor's lightning powerful enough to hurt Faora?

Nope. It barely damaged Iron Man's armor and his electronics proved to be too heavily insulated to overload them, like now the Leviathon's were shocked dead/turned off.

I can't see it being more than a nuisance to a Kryptonian. He's better off smashing in her face.

edit: Unless you meant 'could the lighting destroy her face shielding'. Possible.

You don't think that Iron-man being able to absorb a good bit of the energy might have something to do with his suit only being slightly damaged?

Originally posted by FrothByte
How exactly is Thor weaker in the Avengers?

You're right, debating that building is useless. We all know that steel does not amp lightning. Debating against that is not only trolling but stupid. The reason he used the building was for a vantage point.

We are not talking about amped but storing more current. The building was used to store more current.

Thor appeared weaker. Look at his fight in jotenheim vs. anything else. He even twirled the hammer faster. This is irrelevant anyway since it doesn't add to the debate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You don't think that Iron-man being able to absorb a good bit of the energy might have something to do with his suit only being slightly damaged?

Can Thor hurt Faora with lightning? Perhaps.
But practically it would difficult for him to hit her with lightning since it's a slow attack.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. It barely damaged Iron Man's armor and his electronics proved to be too heavily insulated to overload them, like now the Leviathon's were shocked dead/turned off.

I can't see it being more than a nuisance to a Kryptonian. He's better off smashing in her face.

edit: Unless you meant 'could the lighting destroy her face shielding'. Possible.

Ironman had a suit that was able to absorb the charge from the lightning and convert it to energy. Faora doesn't have a suit like that. She's going to take the full brunt of the lightning attack.

Originally posted by h1a8
Can Thor hurt Faora with lightning? Perhaps.
But practically it would difficult for him to hit her with lightning since it's a slow attack.

This one I can agree with. I think it would be near impossible for Thor to do a lightning attack on the ground before Faora zips up to him and pummels him (unless Faora just stands there looking pretty like she did with the soldiers and allowed them to blast her with guns). If he really wants to use lightning, he'll need to fly up in the air and hit her from there. Not sure how fast Faora is but lightning is pretty fast on it's own, faster than sound anyway.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ironman had a suit that was able to absorb the charge from the lightning and convert it to energy. Faora doesn't have a suit like that. She's going to take the full brunt of the lightning attack.

I don't see lightning as being something that's going to put down a Kryptonian.

They have little problem with heat and explosions. I find it hard to believe with their durability that the shock-factor is going to down her, as normal humans can survive lightning strikes. The only think I see the lightning doing is possibly shutting down her face shield. But they're pretty durable.

Faora 10/10.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't see lightning as being something that's going to put down a Kryptonian.

They have little problem with heat and explosions. I find it hard to believe with their durability that the shock-factor is going to down her, as normal humans can survive lightning strikes. The only think I see the lightning doing is possibly shutting down her face shield. But they're pretty durable.

Humans getting hit by lightning usually differs greatly from instance to instance. Some survive with nothing more than getting thrown off their feet and some are burned to a crisp. Intensity of the lightning and area of impact come into play. Most lightning injuries suffered by humans are seldom direct hits but electrocution from some other medium (lightning hitting ground or post, etc).

As for the kryptonians, I don't think a single lightning blast can knock them out, but it sure can hurt them. It stunned Loki quite well. And it can probably damage their helmets. Repeated blasts may have a chance at knocking them out.

Besides, I think Thor has demonstrated that his lightning isn't just standard lightning. You don't see lightning level an entire landscape.

Thor's lightning isn't exactly normal, as normal lightning can have anywhere between .5 to 5 gigajoules of power, yet one blast managed to charge Iron-man up to 475%.

Now consider, Iron-man's original arc-reactor was stated to generate around 3 gigajoules of power per second and Tony used up most of it's power just flying across a city...his new power source allows him to make international flights.

Originally posted by Silent Master
475%

Also, Iron Man's updated armor generated 12 gigawatts of power after he came and built a new arc reactor for his chest in the 1st movie. So that thunderbolt which amped Tony must have been somewhere around 50 GW of power, based on how it amped up his systems by 4x.